Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 39
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 39, § 95 (2026)

Time for filing petitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1965, c. 408, §9 (RPR). PL 1965, c. 489, §8 (AMD). PL 1973, c. 788, §233 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 372 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 541, §A282 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 46 (AMD). PL 1983, c. 587, §1 (AMD). PL 1989, c. 256, §4 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 615, §A44 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 885, §A7 (RP). PL 1991, c. 885, §§A9-11 (AFF).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1972–2021 · leading case: Pottle v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 551 A.2d 112 (Me. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pottle v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 551 A.2d 112 (Me. 1988). · cites it 12× “This appeal involves that part of the two-year statute of limitations for workers' compensation claims, 39 M.R.S.A. § 95 (Pamph.1988), that measures the limitations period from the date "of any payment by such employer or insurer for benefits otherwise required by this Act.”
Harvie v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 561 A.2d 1023 (Me. 1989). · cites it 10× “Because the time lapse of more than two years from the injuries and last payment to the time the claims were made bars both claims under 39 M.R.S.A. § 95 (Pamph. 1988), we affirm the Appellate Division.”
Dunton v. E. Fine Paper Co., 423 A.2d 512 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “§ 63 and the two-year filing limit of 39 M.R.S.A. § 95. The Commission found that the failure to give notice was excused by the employer’s actual knowledge of the accident, 39 M.”
Myrick v. James, 444 A.2d 987 (Me. 1982). · cites it 2× “[4] See also 39 M.R.S.A. § 95, extending the time in which an employee may file a claim for workers' compensation when the claimant suffers "a mistake of fact as to the cause and nature of the injury.”
Pino v. Maplewood Packing Co., 375 A.2d 534 (Me. 1977). · cites it 2× “1 — The “Mistake of Fact” Issue Relying upon the provision in 39 M.R.S.A. § 95 which authorizes the filing of a petition for compensation “within a reasonable time” after the two-year limitation period if there was no timely filing “because of mistake of fact as to the cause and…”
Hird v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 512 A.2d 1035 (Me. 1986). · cites it 3× “he commissioner found that the statute of limitations could not be raised as a defense because (1) BIW was equitably estopped from asserting such defense in light of the fact that its insurance carrier had lulled Hird into believing that the federal act was his sole remedy and…”
Rines v. Scott, 432 A.2d 767 (Me. 1981). · cites it 4× “The Commissioner gave as his reason for dismissing the petition the employee's failure to file it within two years from the date of the injury pursuant to 39 M.R.S.A. § 95. The employee maintains the Commissioner committed error of law in ruling that the two year period of…”
Upham v. Van Baalen Pac. Corp., 420 A.2d 1229 (Me. 1980). · cites it 5× “Upham’s allegations and raised the affirmative defense that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations provided in 39 M.R.S.A. § 95. In September of 1978, the Workers’ Compensation Commission rendered findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Mr.”
Leighton v. S.D. Warren Co., 883 A.2d 906 (Me. 2005). · cites it 4× “] In this appeal from a decision of a hearing officer of the Workers’ Compensation Board (Dunn, HO), we are called upon to decide which party has the burden of proof with regard to whether the employer had contemporaneous notice that payments made for a later injury related in…”
Dahms v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine, 782 A.2d 774 (Me. 2001). · cites it 5× “See 39 M.R.S.A. § 95 (Supp.1982), repealed and replaced by P.”
White v. McTeague, Higbee, Case, Cohen, Whitney & Toker, P.A., 809 A.2d 622 (Me. 2002). “For the purpose of the motion for a summary judgment, McTeague conceded that Higbee did not advise White of 39 M.R.S.A. § 95, 2 a statute foreclosing workers’ compensation claims if ten years elapse from the date of the most recent payment of benefits.”
Stockford v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 482 A.2d 843 (Me. 1984). · cites it 2× “The commissioner dismissed Stockford’s petition because it was filed beyond the two-year period of limitation, 39 M.R.S.A. § 95 (Supp.1983). 1 The Appellate Division reversed that ruling on the ground that benefits paid to Stockford under the federal Longshoreman’s and Harbor…”
Show all 35 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.